Re: putting bouncycastle 1.49 into backports?

[Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au>]

On 20/01/14 13:14, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Backporting bouncycastle to wheezy is going to cause a lot of troubles
> because the version 1.49 breaks a lot of reverse dependencies. See
> #687694 for a glimpse of the work that was involved in the transition to
> this new version.
>
> A safe solution would be to create separate binary packages that doesn't
> conflict with the stable packages.

When you say creating separate binary packages, do you mean creating
packages that have the version in the name such as

libbcprov1.49-java.deb    (1.49)

libbcprov-java.deb      (existing 1.44 in wheezy)

or did you mean just taking the 1.44 version of bcpkix.jar and making a
package of it for wheezy backports users?

I'm not sure if the backports managers will accept the 1.44 version
being uploaded if it hasn't gone through testing - and as you have 1.49
in testing, it is not possible for me to put something else through
there.  I'm happy to ask them though if that is what you had in mind.

Jitsi doesn't have a versioned dependency on this so it would hopefully
be happy with the 1.44 version though and I think that would look better
than having libbcprov1.49-java packages floating about.